Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
At the battle of Antietam, while Jackson was conferring with McLaws at the placement of his troops, a shell hit near them. It killed an aide but did not explode. It was a dud. If it had not been, Jackson and McLaws would both have been killed.
What if the shell had not been a dud? What if the South loses both a Corps and Division commander on the left flank? What would the effect have been on Confederate morale? How would it have affected Lee?
How about longer term? Does Lee reorganize into three corps as he did after Chancellorsville or does he appoint someone to command Jackson's "wing"? Arguably not much difference not having Jackson at Fredricksburg, but what about if there is no Jackson at Chancellorsville? If Lee has reorganized into three corps instead of two wings, that along would have a tremendous impact at Chancellorsville. Does he send one Corps to swing around the Union flank, or two? Or does he trust any of his commanders enough to send anyone around the flank?
Your thoughts, everyone?
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
Well, for the duration of the battle, Jackson's wing is already as fragile as its going to get. McLaws's division probably suffers somewhat.
McClellan probably wouldn't act differently (he wouldn't know it happened).
Afterwards...ouch.
Demoralization and such is not something I want to try and gauge the full effects of, but it would be serious.
My thoughts, hopefully understandable...
1) Jackson would be replaced by either D.H. or A.P. Hill, probably the latter ("the best division commander with me.")
That would bump Pender up to division command and presumably Scales to brigade command. Nothing too traumatizing here, though it would shake things up considerably.
McLaws is a problem. Lee is already short a division commander (for Jackson's old division), though Kershaw would quite possibly do fine...its still a big leap.
Elzey might be assigned, depending on his condition.
I don't think Lee would have tried three corps, but that's because finding even one corps commander would be difficult. He might...but that would lead to some more organizational h-e-l-l.
As for Chancellorsville...assuming Lee has organized into three wings...what is the third made up of?
Lee had six divisions there. Two of 1st Corps, four of 2nd.
1st Corps would probably be only one division (McLaws's historically), if things were set up prior to the shuffling. Only two for 3rd.
Not a good setup. Of course, Lee might have held on more tightly to Longstreet and his two divisions sent to towards Suffolk, with all the consequences that would entail, but that still leaves an incomplete third corps.
It would be bad. Very bad. I don't know of anyone in the AoNVA at Chancellorsville other than Lee himself or Jackson who would have dared that march.
Lee might well pull back, hoping that he can get reinforcements sent up in time to do something...not usually his thing, but given circumstances...
Briefly: It would be bad. Very bad.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
Mclaw lose would have not have been as great as Jackson.
The big question in Jackson loss would have been "How would Chancellorsville have turned out without Jackson?"
I think it would have been A.P. Hill leading the attack on the union right and it would have ended as history turned out under Jackson. The AoNV still had a lot of punch in it in May 1863 and Hill knew how to march an army quickly. He learned it under Jackson.
Mclaw never really had a pivotal point in civil war history that hinged on his decision he must make or action taken.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
The following article from the 3/22/1891 NYT does not have much to do with Timewalker's specific topic about the deaths of the two generals, but it does give tremendous insight into the bloodshed, carnage, and pandemonium on that fateful day in September of 1862, at Antietam Creek. Timewalker if you'd like me to move this to a different thread let me know. Thank you.
WITH GUN AND CAISSON; SCRAPS FROM THE NOTEBOOK OF AN ARTILLERYMAN. IN THE THICK OF A BATTLE -- A DAY THAT SEEMED ONLY AN HOUR -- THE SURGEONS AT WORK -- SCENES ON FIELDS OF DEATH.
__________________ "What armies and how much of war I have seen, what thousands of marching troops, what fields of slain, what prisons, what hospitals, what ruins, what cities in ashes, what hunger and nakedness, what orphanages, what widowhood, what wrongs and what vengeance."
Clara Barton
Last edited by Glorybound; 09-18-2008 at 05:07 AM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Jackson and McLaws killed at Antietam 
Linear Mode
